Dear Hans & colleagues, Thank you for all the exciting comments in the aftermath of the Lecture. It is the ill-fated of me to be unable to pay the due attention to all these fast exchanges... Anyhow, during these days I am keeping a few questions, among them:
--Partition Logic. It is an alternative to Boolean Logic based in the "distinctional" properties of partitions as opposed (or better, complementarity) to set "membership" or pertenence to classes. New notions of probability, entropy, and a new approach to information theory may be obtained. Seemingly some of the leading figures of this field, conspicuosly David Ellerman, are working in the Quantum application. Not only information theory can be refounded on partition logic, as they say, partitional mathematics is just the set version of the mathematical machinery of QM, or, put the other way around, the mathematics of QM can be obtained by ‘lifting’ the machinery of partitions on sets to complex vector spaces. If that research program turns out to be successful, then quantum mechanics would be the ‘killer application’ of partition logic. See "Antroduction to Partition Logic" by David Ellerman, 2013, in Logic Journal of IGPL. I introduce the theme because in my own "now" the reading of both topics (QBism and partitions) has almost coincided and I was really surprised about the many commonalities. Joseph's LIR might find all this of interest I think. In this list Karl has already worked in the partitional theme, although (am I wrong?) in a rather idiosyncratically way--fortunately this is a list full of mavericks! -- Biology continues to be the kingdom of mechanism. In spite of the massive reliance of molecular biology discoveries on the information metaphor, molecular mentalities have changed little, only moved towards, say, the technological "bioinformatic" but not towards the "bioinformational". The deep sense of what I call the information-flow of communication and how it dovetails with the energy-flow of self-production is monumentally absent. Biologically, the subject/object split is alive and well: circulation of new ideas in between disciplines is not terribly smooth. It belongs to how the individual limitation percolates into the collective works of the communal intelligence (the limitations transpire to the new realm in new ways). -- A related (bioinspired) metaphor: in the living, everything is in the making and in the dismantling. Thus, in what extent are bosonic exchanges the communication stuff and fermions are the more permanent self-production agent/structures? If interesting at all, I could frame the question of how physical entities self-produce via communication a little bit better. --And finally, really finally, about laws of nature--i.e., quantum laws. Although QBism is not quite interested in the out there, it might consider about the existential status of those laws within space-time, in connection with other existentialities, couldn't it? Again, better framing of the question if needed. all the best ---Pedro > *o:* fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:16 PM > > *Subject:* [Fis] Isms > > > > Physicists generally don't spend much time on distinguishing among > philosophical "isms". However, since my New Year lecture was on an > "ism", I can't very well avoid them! > > > > Gordana speaks of Instrumentalist Epistemology and Epistemological > Instrumentalism. As I understand it, instrumentalism was a term > preferred by Dewey to "pragmatism", which I called "the philosophy > most closely related to QBism." So I would agree that > pragmatism/instrumentalism is a good framework for exploring both > the implications of QBism beyond quantum mechanics, and, > conversely, for understanding the claims of QBism itself -- > especially in contrast to realism. > > > > A new "ism" was introduced by David Mermin in a short paper > submitted on the eve of my New Year Lecture (<arxiv.org > <http://arxiv.org>> paper id 1312.7825.) But since his point of > view, by his own admission, is that of QBism /tout court/, I won't > dwell on his new term. Mermin shows that the philosophy of QBism > solves the "Problem of the Now", which has nothing to do with > quantum mechanics or probability. The question, which frustrated > Einstein, is: Why can physics not deal with the universal human > experience of the unique moment called NOW? Mermin answers that > the problem arises from a fundamental mistake. Since the time of > the Greeks we have banished the subject (me -- myself) from any > description of the object (the rest of the universe.) Since NOW > is a personal experience, it therefore played no role in physics. > QBism, on the other hand, puts personal experience front and > center in any description of the world. The NOWs of several people > coincide only when they are in the same place -- another universal > human experience. With this realization Mermin reconciles the > personalist Weltanschauung of the QBist with the insights of > special relativity. > > > > By way of a detour through atomic physics, QBism goes a long way > toward healing the subject/object split, which has been effective > for physical science, but has also impeded progress toward a more > inclusive, holistic understanding of the world. Since Pedro and > many other members of the FIS community are biologists, I hope > that this conversation will help to bring physical scientists and > life scientists closer to each other. > > > > Joseph seeks to defend QBism against the charge of ignorantism. > Thank you! When physicists calculate observed properties of the > > electron to nine decimal points, they are hardly ignorant. But > QBists insist that we incapable of knowing the "real essence" of > what an electron is. What's a rainbow? I can't tell you in > fewer than 300 words. I can't tell you without telling you a story > about light, water, eyes, reflection, refraction, dispersion etc. > Why should an electron (or a piece of chalk) be simpler? > > > > One of my favorite quotes is by the American poet Muriel Rukeyser > who said (approximately): "The universe is made of stories, not of > atoms." And the stories are about experiences, mine and those of > all the the scientists who came before me. > > > > Hans > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
